Never Miss An Opportunity to Divide, Not Unite

The prevailing opinion is that Bush is going to put Bolton into the UN Ambassador position while the senate's on break. So...does John Bolton have pictures of Bush's homosexual affair with Jeff Gannon? (and before you accuse me of being a looney liberal, that would of course be a joke)

This liberal is trying, through the use of common sense, to understand why Bush, who has driven such a huge wedge between those of us on the left and the right, would toss yet another gallon of gas on that fire instead of nominating someone who isn't the most divisive candidate possible. John Bolton's exactly that.

Maybe the President could nominate someone whose work record doesn't include chasing a woman down a hallway screaming and throwing things after her. I know Republicans can be an intense and incendiary lot...but don't you think he could find someone whose work record doesn't include that episode of craziness?

Some conservatives have asked about Clinton's liason with Lewinsky--"what would happen to you if you were caught doing that?" The insinuation is that we might be fired, and that may in actuality be true (though it's important to note that Lewinsky was an intern, not an employee). I can tell you that if I'd been caught doing what Bolton's documented as having done, I would have some major 'splainin' to do. I think it's also safe to say that kind of behavior wouldn't cause me to be elevated to a very high position. More than likely I would have been fired, but in lieu of that, I'd surely have been reprimanded and made to undergo anger management counseling.

So I ask: this is the one-n-only guy who can try to make peace in America's name?

Has John Bolton been given a unique set of genes which allow him and ONLY him the combination of brain cells and assholiness required to slap that UN around and make it a subservient body that will bend to our every will? Can Bush truly find no one who could combine extreme intelligence, knowledge of human nature, a worldwide sense of confidence, and sheer will to mend, rather than yank out by the roots our country's attempts at diplomacy? Is our diplomatic bench so non-existent that there's truly NO ONE who could be the UN Ambassador but John Bolton?

Or is this instead about EGO? Is this about saying "I'M in the driver's seat and DAMNIT, I'll appoint the man I want to appoint, and I don't care a lick what anyone else thinks!"

This attitude doesn't just show a disrespect for the idea of professionalism, nor just the Democratic opposition to Bolton. This shows a disrespect for the American people, which deserve to look with pride toward our UN representation. Why would Bush want us to wince when we think about what Bolton will do there? If Bolton's appointed without Senate confirmation, it'll be yet another notch in the wall of shame of this presidency, which by now is a pock-marked moonscape of stupid moves powered by ego instead of the American peoples' best interest.

I Retired My Kerry/Edwards Sticker Today

Here in South Texas I pass a dozen or more Bush/Cheney '04...or W'04 stickers on my 35-minute commute to work every day. I passed an otherwise dignified-looking older lady the other day that made me feel oh-so-slightly pathological:
Osama is Kerry's man
Bush is my man
Something tells me that her admiration for him had more to do with how he looks in jeans than how he's gonna look in stripes after Lady Justice has her way with him.

But the sticker that offends me the most, beyond all the hokey stupid idiotic short-sighted ignorant misguided foolish stickers...is the one that's square and jet black:
W
The President
The layout is simple and (attemptedly) classy in understated elegance. Problem is, lipstick on a pig still leaves you with just a made-up porker. And that President they're referencing is
W
Dub-ya.

There's nothing classy about anything he's done since becoming President. There is in fact a very good case to be made that he's systematically destroying those things which--not just me,--but most Americans hold in high regard about their country. To me that bumper sticker is the most eloquently symbolic of the difference between what is said, and what is done by this administration. Looks like class, but it actually represents a ruthless gutting of what makes this country great.

So in the 9 months since Kerry/Edwards "lost"--gosh, I think they lost--I've kept my Kerry/Edwards sticker there so that everyone whose eyes find the back of my truck see that I'm not just another supporter of
W
The President

But finally today I retired that ol' sticker. I pulled it off intact and retired it to the side of my file cabinet in the office. Along with Amnesty International, Orlando Recycles, Re-Defeat Bush, Howard Dean for President, it now has a more tranquil, out-to-pasture existence.

What did I put on that place where Kerry/Edwards was? Thought you'd never ask:

FIRE ROVE
AirAmericaradio.com

Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller & Joe Wilson Dropped By Today...

...to a friend's house. John Conyers dropped by as well. They were very funny and very serious, and almost at the same time.

If you're thinking my friend must be someone important, you're right, she is. But while she's important, she's no celebrity. She's a 50-something grandma, former army nurse who's concerned about the direction this country's headed. A dozen or so of her friends (I'm one) dropped in too, and dialed up for a conference call that was being heard from coast to coast, and all the way to Alaska and Queensland, Australia. The conference call was enabled by John Conyers folks in order to keep people connected to the stories that your press isn't adequately covering.

The liberal media is not earning its stripes in the whole Rovegate and Downing Street Memo issues, and continues to almost behave as if it's serving the interests of the ultra rich and those in power. (that's a joke...because that's precisely how they're behaving!)

But back to current headlines, or more accurately, the headlines we should be seeing, but aren't: former CIA agent Larry Johnson testified before a session of Democrats on Friday. For his video testimony, go here. If you're a Republican, I double-dog dare you to go there. In fact, I challenge you now: you don't have the nerve to go there and watch his testimony!

(For Democrats only: I'm challenging Republicans' macho tendencies. Perhaps questioning their manhood if they don't go there will cause them to go there. If they do, they'll see a dedicated CIA guy pissed off at what's been done to Valerie Plame. He worked with her and has a perspective that we haven't yet heard, and if the allegedly liberal media has its way, we will continue not to hear from him!)

But back to the conference call I was talking about originally. It was great being here in the red state homeland of our shameful president, a houseful of true blue Democrats rallying behind the cause and feeling connected with others, all the way to Alaska and beyond. If you're reading this blog I encourage you to connect with those of your kind. And most especially if you reside in the liberal wasteland of red states. The only way to slow down and stop those dismantling what makes our country great, and to turn things around, is to connect with others who believe the way you do. Get involved with your local Democratic party, or perhaps the Democracy For America people. Don't be yellow...to turn blue!

Your President: Mr. I-Won't-Lie. What a Sleazebag

The Republicans tell us that this Karl Rove thing is a tempest in a teapot...
(that's a remakable image, a wonderful use of the English language, isn't it? Comparing a tempest
[A violent windtorm, frequently accompanied by rain, snow, or hail] to the very contained tumult which happens when you boil water in a teapot...brilliant use of metaphor. God, I love words!)
...just more falderal from we liberals.

Allow me, if I might, to cite a thing or two which might cause even those not of the liberal bent, to register strongly on your bullshit meter: Originally Bush spoke out and said that anyone on his staff who leaked information about CIA operative Valerie Plame would be fired. Then the other day Bush said that anyone who "committed a crime" in the case would be fired. It takes no Rhodes scholar to determine that a crime is only a crime once someone's convicted of having committed one. That determination will only happen after months-n-months, perhaps years' worth of legal wrangling.

So Bush says one thing then, and quite another thing now. I don't know where you were raised, but here in Red-land Texas, that's called a flip-flop.

The nature of this flip-flop is a little different though. Back when Bush made his original statement, the idea of this all coming out was so remote that he was indiscreet with his word choice. Now that each of his words are being gone over with a fine-toothed word comb...so to speak...he's being far more careful. He resists the bizarre notion of actually being held to account for what he's saying. And after five years of not being held to account for those things which fall out of his mouth, why in God's name start now?

The Republicans snort and cackle and rant and rave about Clinton's "depends on what the meaning of is, is..." talk (I kinda did too). But they rationalize away Bush's flip-flop so that he doesn't have to live up to his pledge to fire Karl Rove.

How do you stupid shits sleep at night? Your walk and your talk don't align. Your word and your deed are often poles apart. Your pledge of honesty and your corrupt administration bear no resemblance.

I take consolation in knowing that never have Bush's approval ratings been so low. Never have Americans trusted him less. Maybe, just maybe, the jig is up.

Propaganda a la Mode in Iraq

A few days after the brief and impressive US miltary campaign raced across Iraq and then "took" Baghdad, I got to work (I work at a TV station), and got started with my day. Suddenly the TV volume in our lobby went up and the buzz told me something worth seeing was going on. I turned my TV on and watched as the American soldiers helped Iraqis tear down the huge statue of Saddam Hussein in Fardus Square.

I was strongly against the war, yet the images were so inspiring. Despite the faux pas of a soldier first putting the American flag over Saddam's head, then taking it off, I found the video of the throng of Iraqi people working with American soldiers to tear down the statue really inspiring. It felt as though maybe there was some substance to why we went to war.

A week or two later I came across this site. The images I saw the morning the statue came down were tightly-shot footages of hundreds of people in a crowd. Photographs at the above site reveal that there were in fact no more than a couple of hundred, probably most of which were American soldiers. The square had been been blocked off by American tanks and this spontaneous celebration of newfound freedom was in actuality a propaganda coup.

So later that day a very conservative co-worker, infused with the bravado that the day's news inspired, stopped by and said something like "I'll bet you still think Iraqis don't want us there. Don't you?"

I responded something like "I don't exactly know what they think...but I know that since we got there the electricity is on only sporadically, people have lost their jobs, that marketplaces where they shop don't dare to be open, the university's shut down...I suspect a lot of Iraqis aren't too happy about that."

He was just spitting mad. He paced back-n-forth just hurtling "I can't believe you people" and "what's it gonna take for you people to see that life is better for Iraqis since Saddam got deposed?" and things like that.

I told him "Look: society's built on things like running water and availability of food and a stable government and a sense that things will likely get better. Right now those people don't have that. My stand isn't about politics as much as it's about psychology. This has got to be very tough on them."

He kept on spewing things about how freedom's on the march and how I'm on the wrong side of freedom, and whatever other phraseology that was popular with the right wingnuts at the time.

I had no idea then, and I doubt I would have predicted that two years and four months later that things would not be measureably better. Sure, to cherry pick measurements, I know there are things that are better. I do. But there are also measures which show life's gotten worse.

We keep hearing that the insurgency is in its last throes, yet those throes have never been more deadly to Iraqis. What's life like for Iraqis when they have no assurance that when they go to market for food they will return home alive? How is it to get on your bus to head to your job not knowing if that bus will be the place that you die in an explosion?

I've thought a time or two about having that conversation again with my co-worker. But I know him well enough to know that he's constructed a rationale that makes sense to him. That he probably harkens back to WWII and fills his head with images of resoluteness and heroism in the face of adversity to keep himself from seeing the bottom line: we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. And that there's something elementally wrong with how we're doing what we're doing there.

There are many ways to look at the Iraq war. If you have read to this point in my post, you're likely an engaged and intelligent person. Make your own mind up. But as you do, go to the web site above and see the masterful manipulation of images. And wonder how many times your perception of reality has been futzed with so that you'll end up thinking the way they want you to think.

Thanks for your time and attention...

Father Forgive Bernie, For He Knows Not What The Hell He's Talking About

You've seen 'em a million times. Authors come on to the Today show, David Letterman, Jay Leno. The idea is that these writers are there to impress viewers at home that they're an interesting person, their book is a compelling read, and that viewers should buy a copy of their book. No, make that two copies!

So I tune in tonight for my only real appointment television--TheDaily Show With Jon Stewart--and who's on but Bernard Goldberg. You may remember that Bernie is a former CBS correspondent who ran afoul of the network, then wrote a book (fiction?) lamenting the network's entrenched Bias. Bias was in fact its title. This makes him the darling of the right, and not one of my favorite authors.

Bernie comes out to hawk his new book (100 People Who Are Screwing Up America) and Jon Stewart tries not to hide his bias--there's that word again--against the upshot of Goldberg's book. Problem is, he quickly fails to hide that bias. And I can't blame him.

A couple of establishing facts for you regarding the book. More than 90% of the people in the book are liberals--no big surprise. But they're not the movers-n-shakers in DC who necessarily are going to affect all of our lives. They're rappers and movie makers and Al Franken and Barbara Streisand.

Babs?

These facts don't go unnoticed by Stewart who (and I speak from memory here) questioned Goldberg about the premise of the book. He said these are almost all people who are involved in what the right calls the culture wars. Right, Goldberg responds. Stewart: But the people with the REAL power are in Washington DC. Those are the people who can make or break us, not these people.

Goldberg tried to mount a defense that popular culture was indeed very important and affected us all...but it was very weak. It got to the point where I actually felt sorry for Bernie. He started awkwardly into a joke and Stewart leaned forward, puts his hand on Bernie's shoulder and said "Bernie, humor is very very difficult..."

Couldda heard a pin drop.

But one of the most telling moments is when they went to a break and video was shown of former President Jimmy Carter pounding nails at a Habit for Humanity house. Then this came on the screen:
#6
"Oh my God!" I thought. Jimmy Carter is the #6 in d0ing harm to this great land of ours. If you take nothing else away from this, please take this: an old man with a hammer can't do squat against this country. At least not when you put him up against the dirty dozen: Bush, Rove, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Delay, Cheney, Rush, Hannity...and three more than I can't think of at 11:31 at night.

Something tells me that when Bernie left the Daily Show set his agent didn't slap him on the back and say "You hit it out of the park Bernie...out of the park!"

That Thread on Your Sweater? Let Me Give it a Yank, Mr. Rove...

Oh my...let the great unraveling begin. Speculation on blogs like this one for months, more than a year actually, has been that he who outed CIA Operative Valerie Plame was none other than the rather insane-looking brain-behind-the-cowboy, Karl Rove. As you've heard by now, it's moved from speculation to fact that Rove communicated with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper, specifically mentioning "Joseph Wilson's wife" in that interchange.

This revelation came about through an investigation authored by Clinton attack dog and Newsweek magazine investigative reporter Michael Isikoff. By Clinton attack dog, I'm meaning that Isikoff went for the Clinton throat with several Drudge-styled revelations back in the early days of the Lewinsky scandal. If you haven't arrived at this conclusion thus far, let me help you out: this guy hardly lives to serve Democrats. He was one of their worst nightmares.

But back to our sordid tale...the suspicious amongst might be easily convinced that that gun over there is still smoking. I mean, is it happenstance that Rove was pointing reporters to Wilson's wife, and then shortly thereafter rightwingnut columnist Robert Novak spilled the beans about Valerie Plame?

When the Plame story came out, anyone with even half an objective bone in their bodies was saying uncomfortably... "Uh...is that right? Is that a decent thing to do? Is that...legal??" We don't know the answer to the last question yet, but the definite answer to the first two isn't no. It's hell no!

So the stage is set for today's press conference with Scott McLellan (derogatorily called "Puffy McMoonface by the less polite of us on the left end). Strangely, the press began behaving like a press ought to. When McClellan tried to dodge a good question, they called him on it. Finally David Gregory asked McClellan if he wasn't even going to stand behind the words he'd uttered at the same podium a year and a half ago. An electric moment, no doubt.

Suddenly McClellen has begun sounding as though he's going to break into a "depends on what the meaning of is is..." speech. Oh, it was rich.

Payback's a...what's the word I'm lookin' for? I think you know!

Actually though, this isn't payback. This is a press not taking a shit answer and moving on to the next question. The questions were valid and McClellan's avoidance of them didn't come across as having the investigation's well being as his first priority. He was doing everything he could to not say the right thing. And he was well aware that this could be a press moment that lives on and on, as one of his few notable points in front of the camera. He didn't want what fell out of his mouth to be the wrong thing.

Someone forgot to tell him that closing the barn door after the horse bolted doesn't do a lot of good. And that thread that someone started pulling on Mr. Rove's sweater? It won't be pushed back into it.

Where There's Plame, There's a Liar

I don't claim to be a brainiac, though I'm usually successful at merging verbs and nouns to form understandable sentences. So I'm obviously not an idiot. But there is something I've yet to comprehend the logic behind. Perhaps you can help?

As you well know, columnist Robert Novak outted CIA operative Valerie Plame in his newspaper column. Now, I'm not going to go through the convoluted story as to why. The bottom line you well know already, because you have enough grey matter to be here on this site reading what I'm writing.

But the real mystery here is this: Novak's not going to jail. The people first in line to go to jail over this outing--Judith Miller and Matt Cooper--never published Ms. Plame's identity. These two New York Times reporters were told about Ms. Plame, but elected not to use that information.

Make sense? I didn't think so either.

If you're reading this late in the evening and are not in possession of all your faculties, let me re-state. Judith Miller and Matt Cooper were told about Valerie Plame, but decided not to use that info. Robert Novak wrote about Ms. Plame, revealing her identity to the entire world in his column.

Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper are preparing to spend 18 months in jail.
Robert Novak continues to spew bilge from his Right Wingnut observation tower, apparently not threatened with a loss of freedom.

Now there's the late-breaking tidbit that Mr. Cooper won't be headed to the hoosegow.

Could it be that Novak--he who crows about being on the right side of freedom--won't have his threatened for outting a CIA operative? This may not be Denmark, but something does smell.

It's been said many times that the wheels of justice turn slowly, and at times, in the strangest fashion. When whoever said that said that, they musta been talking about this case. I gotta tell you truly, the logic, the justice, the sense of this case completely eludes me.

Like I started out saying, in the toolshed there are tools sharper than me. If you're one of them, please cause the logic of this case to come clear to me. Hearing that in fact our legal system isn't being blatantly subverted for political reasons--this time--would be most comforting to hear. I thank you in advance...

How We Sleazy Liberals Are So Different From Conservatives

If you happen to be conservative and have somehow wandered into a this bastion lefty thought, I'm going to open up the hidden and sordid world of what we liberals do when no one's looking. Can you handle it?

We had set the alarm for 5:30, but when I'm about to travel I tend to beat the alarm clock. I was up by 5:08, showering and getting our stuff ready. We had a 3+ hour drive to east Texas where our daughter was riding in a horse show.

We got there and began doing what we always do on horse show days: remind her to put her number on her back. Fetch water. Ask her if she was sure she had her dressage test memorized. Pronunciation of dressage is dr-säzh, if that helps(?).

Dictionary.com defines dressage as
"The guiding of a horse through a series of complex maneuvers by slight movements of the rider's hands, legs, and weight."

A dressage test is ridden in a rectangular arena which has a series of letters from the alphabet posted at specific points all around it. A very exacting set of moves committed between the letters (say E and M) which showcase the rider's ability to cause a horse to accomplish those moves reveals the skills of the rider and horse to a judge, who grades everything in minute detail.

So yesterday, our daughter had a very good test, and was first in her division at the end of dressage. Next came stadium jumping. This test is given in a larger fenced arena which has been set up with a series of jumps. Riders have to ride a specific route without variation, jump each jump, and not knock down any portion of the jump. Our daughter did that and had no time penalities, so she remained in 1st place.

Lastly was the Cross Country portion of the competition. A Cross Country course is set up over about 20 acres of land, wherein logs have been set up, jumps built, ponds created, up and down-hill jumps built, and riders have to traverse the course, inducing their horses to jump them all. The course has to be completed within a certain set time, and riders are given time penaties for too large a variation.

My kid completed the course, and all within 10 secs of the optimum time. In short, my daughter was best in her division, and came home with the Blue Ribbon.

So...while you may not have a daughter who rides horses, I'll bet that the time and effort (and Lord knows the money) that we've spent on our daughter is a lot like that which you've spent on yours. And you didn't do it for the pleasure of spending money, but to try to give your children a hobby, perhaps a passion, something positive to do with their time, and something which gives them self esteem. The lessons they learn through their hobbies is something that they can take into adulthood.

Okay, so my title might have been misleading. Sorry about that. Seems to me the lesson here is that we're made of the same stuff. And that our hopes and dreams for our kids are probably a lot alike.

Stephanie Miller: the Power of Laughter

Just a quick one for you folks who don't have enough laughter in your life. Stephanie Miller has a talk show which battles the insanity (disguised as government--and Fox News) with the power of humor.

She's funny as hell.

Now Stephanie may or may not be broadcast in your town, but she IS available on the internet. Go here for a listen. The one I'm listening to right now is 6/30, hour 1. She draws and quarters and skewers and sautees Bill O'Reilly. She does it the old fashioned way: with his own words. She doesn't make up things that O'Reilly supposedly says, she plays back what he put on his own show.

So as we slog away in this awful war with the misguided Republican party, when all humor seems to have been sucked out of the room in a Monica Lewinsky moment, Stephanie Miller comes along and makes you laugh your socks off. Guaranteed, you'll be sockless if you go and listen.

I'm listening now as O'Reilly lectures General Wesley Clark on how to fight a war. What????